Natural Vs. Accomplished

All other things being equal, what is the performance difference between a natural versus an accomplished player at a given position? The difference in percentage terms would be helpful. Thank you.

It's a good question. I don't think there's any difference at all, but I stand to be corrected.

I haven't noticed any performance difference in my players between the two.

I've seen marginal differences myself, for instance sticking a player on the wing who is naturally a forward but is accomplished at right wing has bitten me in the bum a few times, but generally speaking there isn't a whole lot between them, it's the stats needed for a particular position that can really make a difference

id say accomplished means 90% as effective as natural

accomplished suggests its not his natural position ofcourse

but its just a guess dont quote me

I believe that players never lose ability at their 'natural' position due to retraining for others, where it can happen with positions where they are 'accomplished'.

i would say 95%. all dependent on their stats. you can train any one to be accomplished eventually but a striker turned winger would be rubbish if he had no dribbling and crossing stats.

in one of the cm games cm4 i think i got peed off with fat ronaldo and stuck him in the reserves put him as a goalkeeper, forgot about it and when he left the club he signed for palmeras, i looked him up later to see how he was doing and he was actually a goalkepper!!!!!

I would imagine accomplished would mean the player performs at 90%+ what his stats are. I only do it occassionally I have many talented forwards who are accomplished attacking flank midfielders, i like putting arrows towards the centre of the penalty area for them.

Natural = 20/20

Accomplished = 16-19/20

Either way you'll get consistantly good performances out of a player.

I wouldn't pay too much attention to it.